People v. Shepard CA5

California Court of Appeal Feb 11, 2015 No. F067441Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that CALCRIM No. 332, which instructs jurors on evaluating expert testimony, is a correct statement of the law and does not contain instructional error.

Issues

Whether the instruction that the jury 'must decide whether information on which the expert relied was true and accurate' is erroneous.
Whether the instruction that the jury 'may disregard' unsupported expert opinions improperly grants the jury discretion to accept unsupported evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude that CALCRIM No. 332 is a correct statement of the law.”

“Viewed in context, the sentence appellant challenges directed the jury to examine any ‘information on which the expert relied’ that was disclosed at trial, and to assess its value on the basis of the evidence admitted at trial.”

Filed 2/11/15 P. v. Shepard CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F067441 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MCR028468) v.

KAREN LUANNE SHEPARD, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Mitchell C. Rigby, Judge. Paul Bernstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Lewis A. Martinez and Amanda D. Cary, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Smith, J.

-ooOoo- Defendant Karen Luanne Shepard appeals the trial court’s order continuing her involuntary treatment as a mentally disordered offender (Pen. Code, § 2970).1 On appeal, she contends the trial court’s instruction on expert testimony was erroneous. We affirm. DISCUSSION We review claims of instructional error de novo. (People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218.) “‘“In determining whether error has been committed in giving or not giving jury instructions, we must consider the instructions as a whole … [and] assume that the jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given. [Citation.]”’” (People v. Martin (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1111-1112.) We view jury instructions in the context of the overall charges, not in artificial isolation. (People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 777.) “‘Instructions should be interpreted, if possible, so as to support the judgment rather than defeat it if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation.’” (People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088.) In this case, the trial court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 332 regarding the jury’s evaluation of expert testimony, as follows:

“Witnesses were allowed to testify as experts and to give opinions. You must consider the opinions, but you are not required to accept them as true or correct. The meaning and importance of any opinion are for you to decide. In evaluating the believability of an expert witness, follow the instructions about the believability of witnesses generally. In addition, consider the expert’s knowledge, skill, experience, training and education, the reasons the expert gave for any opinion, and the facts or information on which the expert relied in reaching that opinion. You must decide whether information on which the expert relied was true and accurate. You may

People v. Shepard CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief